Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1887-10-14
Responsibility Placed - Inter
esting TO Keepers of Saloons.
nm p;ttsburg T.lerraph of Oct. 10.

From Pittsburg Telegraph of Oct. 10.
Saloon keepers are interested in a
Supreme Court decision handed down
this morning.
Chief Justice Gordon. OF the Su-
preme Court. gave the opinion OF the
Court in the case Of VIM. Rommel
vs., jacob Schambacher, from Phila-
delphia county, deciding the liabili-
ties Of saloon keeper tor injuries to
persons while in the saloon.
In this case it appears that the
plaintiff on the evening of the 9:h of
August, 1884, entered tie defendants
tavern and there found Edward
Flanagan. They both became intox'
icated on liquor furnished by Scham
bacher. Whilst the plaintiff was
standing on the outside of the bar,
engaged in conversation with the de-
fendant, who was in the inside of the
same, Flanagan pinned a piece OF
paper to Rommel's back and set it on
fire. The consequence was that Rom
mel's clothes were sooa 10 flames, and
before they could be extinguished ne
was very badly injured. He brought
the present suit 10 recover damages
from tie defen dant for the injury
thus sustained. The court below ad-
judged the facts as stated above to be
insufficient to sustain the plai ntitf's
case and directed nonsult.
The Court says: "In this, we think,
it made a mistake. There is no
doubt that the defendant, from the
position he occupied, had a full view
of the room outside of the bar and
did see, or might have seen all that
was going On in it. If, in fact, he
did see Flanagan setting fire to the
plaintiff, and did not interfere to pro-
tect his guest from SO fragrant an out
rage, his responsibility for the conse-
quences is undoubtcd. If, on the
other hand, he was guilty of making
Flanagan drunk. or if he came there
drunk, and Schambacker knew that
fact, he was bound to see that he did
no injury to his customers. All this
is plain matter of common law and
good sense and does not depend on
the act of 1854 or any other statute.
when one enters saloon or tav-
ern, opened for the entertainment oi
the public, the proprietor is bound to
see that he is properly protected from
assaults or insults, as well as Of those
who are iu his employ as Of the
drunken and vicious men whom be
may choose to harbor. To illustrate
the principle here stated we need &C
no farther than the case of the Pitt
burg and Connelisville Railroad
Company VS. Pillow, 76 Pa. $40. Ii
the case cited, a drunken row occar-
red on board one of the defendant:
cars, and during the quarrel bottle
was broken and e piece of the glas;
struck the plaintiff, a peaceable pas
seuger, in the eye and put it out
Held that the company was raSponsl
BILE for the injury.
In the opinion of this Court th'
following language was used: 'Th'
plaintiff lost his eye through tint
quarrel of a couple Of drunken men
who should not have been permitted
aboard the cars, or, if go permitted
should have been so guarded or sepat
ated from the sober and orderly par
Of the passengers that no iOjur.
could have resulted from their drunk
en- br&wls.'
"If then, a railroad company is liza
BILE fer the conduct OF drunken me-
who may chance to board the cars
much more the tavern keeper VII
not only permits drunken men abou
his premises, but furnishes liquor t
make them drunk, and who is instru
mental in fitting them for the accom-
plishment Of just such an insane am
brutal trick as that disclosed by th
evidence.
The judgment of the court belov
is now reversed and a new. trial OF
Gered